Jesus as a black man

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abba
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Abba

Guest
Hello Brothers and Sisters in Christ Jesus,

I was just thinking how it is clear to Catholics that Jesus was Jewish and light skin. Basically, as a Catholic I know that Jesus looked as he is portrayed in the paintings and scultures that throughtout history have been commissioned by the Church and in those works of art that were not commissioned yet are Catholic images of Our Lord Jesus. I would think that this is clear. I can understand that other faiths because of a lack of understanding may believe that Jesus was a black man or any other type of race or color but, to see Jesus portrayed as a black man in a Catholic parish just strikes me as wrong,

Personally, I have a lot of relatives, my grandparents and aunts and uncles being the Catholic families that they were did not believe in contraception and all had very big families. To say that, I have a lot of relatives. My relatives can form a beautiful rainbow with the color of their skin. Yet, they do not portray Jesus to look the color of their skin. Jesus was who he was and he looked the way he looked.

Jesus had one body and he died for ALL of us. He looked the way he looked and I see no need for Catholics to portray him as a black man. Jesus is not a Jesus for the black people, a Jesus for the white people, a Jesus for the Indians, a Jesus for the orientals, a Jesus for the females, etc… there is only one Jesus and he looked the way he looked.

Is there anything in the teachings of the Church that would confirm my view that it is a defamation to portray Jesus in any other way than the race and color he really was? I would go as far as to say that it is a sacrilege and one that can create confusion to the faithful.
 
Jesus has a resurrection body. He can look like whatever he wants–note how the disciples on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Him. In the same way that the Blessed Mother does not look the same to everyone in her different apparitions, I cannot see anything wrong with people depicting Jesus in different ways.

Also, I have always assumed that Jesus had darker skin and hair than that with which he is usually depicted in European art. I mean, He was a Jewish man from the Middle East–presumably he was dark-skinned, with dark-brown hair. We (Europeans and Americans of European stock) have lightened Him in our art, so that we will understand better that He is our brother–why should anyone else be prevented from doing so?

So I’m afraid I have to disagree with you 100% on this one. When Christ was on earth, He was Middle Eastern, not European or African. Now, with His resurrection body, He can be all three, as well as Asian, etc.

Just my :twocents:

–Jen
 
Abba said:
Hello Brothers and Sisters in Christ Jesus,

I was just thinking how it is clear to Catholics that Jesus was Jewish and light skin. Basically, as a Catholic I know that Jesus looked as he is portrayed in the paintings and scultures that throughtout history have been commissioned by the Church and in those works of art that were not commissioned yet are Catholic images of Our Lord Jesus. I would think that this is clear. I can understand that other faiths because of a lack of understanding may believe that Jesus was a black man or any other type of race or color but, to see Jesus portrayed as a black man in a Catholic parish just strikes me as wrong,

Personally, I have a lot of relatives, my grandparents and aunts and uncles being the Catholic families that they were did not believe in contraception and all had very big families. To say that, I have a lot of relatives. My relatives can form a beautiful rainbow with the color of their skin. Yet, they do not portray Jesus to look the color of their skin. Jesus was who he was and he looked the way he looked.

Jesus had one body and he died for ALL of us. He looked the way he looked and I see no need for Catholics to portray him as a black man. Jesus is not a Jesus for the black people, a Jesus for the white people, a Jesus for the Indians, a Jesus for the orientals, a Jesus for the females, etc… there is only one Jesus and he looked the way he looked.

Is there anything in the teachings of the Church that would confirm my view that it is a defamation to portray Jesus in any other way than the race and color he really was? I would go as far as to say that it is a sacrilege and one that can create confusion to the faithful.
Click to expand...
but the thing is that we dont really know what He looked like, like you said Jesus is Jesus for all, and that means it is unimportant what He looked like, for all i care you could have a picture of Jesus with green skin and it would not matter to me
 
I see no sacrilege or confusion. Most everyone knows that Jesus was a Jew, probably dark skinned with Semitic features, most likely handsome within the constructs of his community as he was very charismatic and an ugly man would not be considered charismatic at that time. But we do NOT know what he looked like. The art work portraying him with light skin and blue eyes came hundreds of years after His death and resurrection. The artists took license to protray him as whatever was considered handsome for that age and culture.

Portraying Jesus as a black man has more to do with folks being able to see his universality - he is “our” Christ as much as “your” Christ.

Our Lady came to Mexico as the Virgin of Guadalupe with features that were distinctly Native Mexican in order to convey something to the Indians of that time. She looks very different as the Dolores, for example.
 
revert_jen said:
Jesus has a resurrection body. He can look like whatever he wants–note how the disciples on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Him. In the same way that the Blessed Mother does not look the same to everyone in her different apparitions, I cannot see anything wrong with people depicting Jesus in different ways.

Also, I have always assumed that Jesus had darker skin and hair than that with which he is usually depicted in European art. I mean, He was a Jewish man from the Middle East–presumably he was dark-skinned, with dark-brown hair. We (Europeans and Americans of European stock) have lightened Him in our art, so that we will understand better that He is our brother–why should anyone else be prevented from doing so?

So I’m afraid I have to disagree with you 100% on this one. When Christ was on earth, He was Middle Eastern, not European or African. Now, with His resurrection body, He can be all three, as well as Asian, etc.

Just my :twocents:

–Jen
Click to expand...
this is more along the lines of what i was trying to say with my last post, i just could not articulate it as well, thank you Jen!
 
I’ve had this discussion too many people to count.

Jesus was not black nor was he white; He was genetically Semetic an came from a region where it is fairly certain that his complexion would have been olive/brown-toned. His hair was probably wavy, thick and dark. Just look at the inhabitants of that region today.

Many of the portraits commissioned by the Church and others often reflect their own thoughts and surroundings. And many of the earliest icons reflect an appearance of a Jesus who is clearly Semitic. There are also many apparitions and paintings from the far East to Mexico that depict both Our Blessed Mother and the Christ Child in a way that is familiar to the inhabitants of those regions.

Besides, it is not appropriate to state that the “Catholic” Jesus is a white Jesus. And if a parish wishes to display a Jesus of African-likeness then by all means I applaud and encourage them. Jesus is God and saviour of ALL men.

(BTW, I have always thought that Jesus would look similar to Jeff Goldblum)
http://thecount.com/wp-content/uplo...l_sinay.jpg/215px-Spas_vsederzhitel_sinay.jpg
 
Just wanted to add that Jen’s explanation was perfect and beautiful!
 
I have to say that one of the most beautiful things I have seen is a collection of Nativity scenes from around the world, with the Holy Family depicted as different races and in all the different traditional clothing of the places. The universality of the Church really hit me with that 🙂

I do not now if your church where Christ is depicted as a black man is or was at one point predominantly black? That may be why they did it.
 
Personally, If they somehow found out Jesus had zebra colored skin, It wouldn’t matter. 🙂
 
I don’t think his apperance is important that is why there is no physical despcription of him in the bible. I think he had darker skin. There are some pretty cool 3D images of his face taken out from the Shroud of Turin which tend to show a long face with a long nose which I don’t think is a very tipical middle eastern feature. They say too that he was unusually tall for his time.
 
Abba said:
Is there anything in the teachings of the Church that would confirm my view that it is a defamation to portray Jesus in any other way than the race and color he really was? I would go as far as to say that it is a sacrilege and one that can create confusion to the faithful.
Click to expand...
Nope, sorry. There are no Church documents to back up your opinion. 😛

I understand your reticence. Some people do appear to go overboard when compared to our own sensibilities. However, this is really not a new phenomenon. If you look at the history of Christian art, this type of thing happens all the time. In the Victorian era especially, they would portray many biiblical scenes with people dressed as though they were from the Victorian era. The Church has never condemned this to my knowledge.
 
I am aware that Our Blessed Mother Mary appeared as an aztec to Juan Diego and the image of Guadalupe is one that she herself left behind:



She also appeared european looking to Bernadette:



However, Jesus has never changed his race nor skin color in his appearance. I do not think that we are at liberty to do so. If Jesus wants us to have an image of him as an indian, oriental or black man let us wait until he appears as such and the Catholic Church declares the apparition to be genuine. I do not think that we are at liberty to change hiis sacred image to look whatever way we want. I think it is sacred.

Shroud of Turin:


Image approved by Saint Faustina:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/24/Divine_Mercy_(Adolf_Hyla_painting)2007-08-16.jpg/200px-Divine_Mercy_(Adolf_Hyla_painting)2007-08-16.jpg

Sacred Heart of Jesus:




http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Michelangelo's_Pieta_5450_cropncleaned_edit.jpg/300px-Michelangelo's_Pieta_5450_cropncleaned_edit.jpg
Click to expand...
Furthermore, the Catholic parish that is depicting Jesus as black, St. Sabina, was greatfly influenced by a pastor of a Baptist church; Jeremiah Wright.

Jesus was a poor black man:
metacafe.com/watch/1594786/jesus_was_a_poor_black_man_says_barack_obamas_pastor/

saintsabina.org/

I think it is a lack of reverence and a sacrilige to change the image of Our Lord according to our whims and desires and political inclinations.

Peace,

Abba
 
I dont think minor differences are too much to worry about. As others have said, our Lady has appeared differently in various apparitions -though never like the horrible rendition of her on the Cathedral in LA :eek:(Our Lady of the Angels i think?) where she appears in short sleeves with a short haircut and no mantle etc - ridiculous representation of our Blessed Mother!

The same applies with Christ. He was not a black man nor a blond haired blue eyed european etc. Why some people get upset at this escapes me. It shouldn’t matter what skin colour he had, He will judge us all equally. It has never bothered me that I dont look like Jesus.

Also, regarding the whole “ressurrection body” thing - Christ ressurrected the very same body he was born with and which was nailed to the cross. As far as I know, apart from skin colour, language and some other minor features I dont think that our Lord or our Lady has ever appeared in any approved apparition radically different that the way they would have looked on earth - but I am open to correction on this one!
 
I thought Jesus’s resurrected body looked so different from his earthly body that the apostles did not recognize Him at first?
 
lozeerose,

JEFF GOLDBLUM?" Well now that you mention it with the picture…But way more cool, right?😉
 
The Eastern ikons probably portray Christ as He most likely was, rather than the later, romanticised Western artwork. My concern with portraying Him as black is that it is being done for some smarmy political/political correctness posture, rather than trying to make a (rather weak) theological point. (Anyone remember an early “correctness” Christmas song "Some children see him dark and brown . . . "?) If He was regularly being portrayed as different ethnicities, that would be one thing, but I don’t believe that is the usual case.

Regarding the road to Emmaus, where the disciples didn’t recognise Him – there is a whole lotta interesting conjecture there, none of which needs postulate that Jesus was a shape-shifter out of Star Trek or Hogwarts. My own theory draws on C.S. Lewis (of course!) – remember after “The Last Battle”, when the kids are plunging through some unrecognised land, and only after a while realise it is Narnia? Because they are going deeper into reality, I think was the premise, closer to God Himself, they didn’t recognise it. Or think of it this way – what is the first thing almost everyone says to, or about, some TV or film star that they have met in the flesh – “Oh, I hardly recognised you/him/her!” Because a layer has been pulled back, and they are closer to the ‘real’ person. I believe something much like this happened, more subtle but as glorious as the Transfiguration – they were seeing the “Real” Jesus, freed of the perishable body, freed of the burden of ephemeral existence, showing forth the glory of Sonship.More mundane, but as important, don’t forget what condition Jesus was in the last time they would have seen Him.

So no, I don’t think we have to postulate Christ the Chameleon, changing color and skin to blend in with the congregation. At least, not until I’m allowed to exhibit paintings showing Martin Luther King as a white man.
 
Oh, my goodness, thegreypiper! 🙂 When I started to read your post and saw Star Trek and Hogwarts, I thought that it was simply going to be another invalid post. But, then I read it and - God Bless You!!! I wanted to express the same thing but was trying to find a way to express it without saying too little nor too much and actually expressing the understanding. It was not obvious, but, I was thinking it thru. Then, there is your post! It’s perfect! I know that many people agree with your explanation.

Exactly. We need to understand that Jesus was APPEARING to the apostles. An occurence that was not expected nor part of their reality nor control. So, they were taken by it, spiritual they experienced it and when they digested the event then they - RECOGNIZED HIM. I understand that it had absolutely nothing to do with the way he actually physically looked. I also understand that he appears in a glorified body which maintains a semblance of how he looked when he was on earth.
thegreypiper said:
Regarding the road to Emmaus, where the disciples didn’t recognise Him – there is a whole lotta interesting conjecture there, none of which needs postulate that Jesus was a shape-shifter out of Star Trek or Hogwarts. My own theory draws on C.S. Lewis (of course!) – remember after “The Last Battle”, when the kids are plunging through some unrecognised land, and only after a while realise it is Narnia? Because they are going deeper into reality, I think was the premise, closer to God Himself, they didn’t recognise it. Or think of it this way – what is the first thing almost everyone says to, or about, some TV or film star that they have met in the flesh – “Oh, I hardly recognised you/him/her!” Because a layer has been pulled back, and they are closer to the ‘real’ person. I believe something much like this happened, more subtle but as glorious as the Transfiguration – they were seeing the “Real” Jesus, freed of the perishable body, freed of the burden of ephemeral existence, showing forth the glory of Sonship.More mundane, but as important, don’t forget what condition Jesus was in the last time they would have seen Him.

So no, I don’t think we have to postulate Christ the Chameleon, changing color and skin to blend in with the congregation. At least, not until I’m allowed to exhibit paintings showing Martin Luther King as a white man.
Click to expand...
 
thegreypiper said:
Regarding the road to Emmaus, where the disciples didn’t recognise Him – there is a whole lotta interesting conjecture there, none of which needs postulate that Jesus was a shape-shifter out of Star Trek or Hogwarts.
Click to expand...
That was probably unnecessarily sarcastic. I would be interested to know what the mention of Star Trek or Hogwarts has added to the substance of the discussion.
thegreypiper said:
So no, I don’t think we have to postulate Christ the Chameleon, changing color and skin to blend in with the congregation. At least, not until I’m allowed to exhibit paintings showing Martin Luther King as a white man.
Click to expand...
Well, Martin Luther King (Jr. I assume) does not have a resurrection body (since nobody does except Jesus and Mary, and possibly one or two people from the Old Testament), so mention of him was irrelevant to the discussion.

I admit I was careless in my explanation. I do not believe in Christ the Chameleon, changing color (and skin? what does that mean?) to blend with the congregation. For one thing, I was thinking more about His appearance to individuals, not any sort of group blending at all. But what I actually think (as opposed to the greatly simplified version which is what I said) meant was something more along the lines of a resurrection body that we see with our minds rather than just our eyes, so that without the actual body changing, the impact on our minds is different. In fact, there are only two resurrection bodies in existence that we know of for sure, and one of them is known to appear to different people looking differently. The explanation that I heard of this that I liked (but don’t hold as personal dogma, just a thing I think) was that human eyes can’t really take in what they are seeing so those who are blessed to “see” it translate the pure beauty of the Blessed Mother into whatever our minds consider the greatest eartly beauty. For people of different races, the idea of beauty would be different races as well.

I still think Jesus could appear however He wants. He is God as well as Man. But it is not necessary to believe that He does do so, to explain why people see Him differently from each other.

–Jen
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top